This is a known issue in IBM's 2.0.47 port of Apache (IHS), which was
fixed in a later upstream version (possibly by the 2.2.8 port, but I
really can't say for sure). It would take a lot of digging for me to
locate the specific version, so I'm going to pass on that one. At least
in my case, this
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Houser, Rickhouser.r...@aoins.com wrote:
This is a known issue in IBM's 2.0.47 port of Apache (IHS), which was
fixed in a later upstream version (possibly by the 2.2.8 port, but I
really can't say for sure).
This message is not unique to IBM's Apache-based
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
Guenter, please confirm if you are casting a veto, or in light of this
earlier discussion and rationale, you are just expressing your standing
distaste for the patch (which is -0)?
-0
Gün.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Except that in this case, between Lars offer to ignore his vote/veto, and
the fact that he hasn't responded in 21 months (I also emailed him directly
last week to ensure he made note of this thread), he apparently does not
feel strongly enough to either confirm his
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Lars Eilebrecht l...@apache.org wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Except that in this case, between Lars offer to ignore his vote/veto,
and
the fact that he hasn't responded in 21 months (I also emailed him
directly
last week to ensure he made note of
Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
My apologies for not responding earlier, but I was busy moving from
Munich to London last week ...
Understandable, congratulations on what I hope was a successful move,
thanks for responding today.
As far as I remember, Mads Toftum also voted with a -1.
Yes; although
mod_auth_digest cannot implement nonce-count checking or the md5-sess
algorithm if the platform doesn't have shared memory.
Right now, if the admin configures either of these options and the
platform doesn't have shared memory, the module issues a warning and
continues without the requested
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote:
mod_auth_digest cannot implement nonce-count checking or the md5-sess
algorithm if the platform doesn't have shared memory.
Right now, if the admin configures either of these options and the platform
doesn't have shared
From: Jeff Trawick Sent: Mittwoch, 9. September 2009 16:58
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Should server start if module cannot behave as configured?
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Dan Poirier
Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
If you make a conditional request for a cached document, but the
document is expired in the cache, mod_cache currently passes on the
conditional request to the backend. If the backend responds with a 304
Not Modified response that indicates that the cached copy is
On 09/09/2009 10:57 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
2) If it should be changed, what's the best way to do it? The
change could break configurations that currently appear to work,
although they're not really doing what the admin configured them to do.
how many affected configurations are
Sounds like 3 years have not changed the feelings towards
this. Ideally, we should remove the whole ap_get_server_version/
ap_get_server_banner re-work as well since, iirc, this was
all to make it easier for this exact type of change.
In any case, I'll revert as soon as I have some cycles.
Hello,
I am not whether I have missed a response.
I think backporting this patch is not critical and
helps to remove differences between the
mod_ssl versions.
thanks in advance for consideration
/PS
---BeginMessage---
Hello,
The patch for 724717 moves some logic from ssl_engine_kernel into
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Sounds like 3 years have not changed the feelings towards
this. Ideally, we should remove the whole ap_get_server_version/
ap_get_server_banner re-work as well since,
It is generally useful to separate what information we
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:48 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
mod_fcgid freinds;
Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
review, take it for
Peter Sylvester wrote:
I am not whether I have missed a response.
I think backporting this patch is not critical and
helps to remove differences between the
mod_ssl versions.
Can you confirm the URL of whre the patch lives? I assumed 724717 was a
bugzilla number, but no luck.
Regards,
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
The error message should at least give the name or position of
the problematic virtual host definition. Like this:
snap
+ configured [Hint: SSLCertificateFile]
(%s:%d),
+ pServ-defn_name, pServ-defn_line_number);
+1
On 09.09.2009 01:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
mod_fcgid freinds;
Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
review, take it for a spin, and cast your
Graham Leggett wrote:
Peter Sylvester wrote:
I am not whether I have missed a response.
I think backporting this patch is not critical and
helps to remove differences between the
mod_ssl versions.
Can you confirm the URL of whre the patch lives? I assumed 724717 was a
bugzilla
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Sounds like 3 years have not changed the feelings towards
this. Ideally, we should remove the whole ap_get_server_version/
ap_get_server_banner re-work as well since, iirc, this was
all to make it easier for this exact type of change.
---1! (whoops, that's zero :)
Rainer Jung wrote:
Signing good, hash files are in a format at least my md5sum and sha1sum
do not understand how to check.
Can anyone point out what I'm doing wrong with 'gpg --print-md md5'? Am I
missing some magic flag, or is the idea of using gpg to create hashes simply
broken?
Rainer Jung wrote:
I think it's still beta, because the docs are not enough to get one
started. Especially the description for FCGIWrapper is strange:
Well, all the docs are strange ;-) Any volunteers?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/docs/manual/mod/
- I wasn't able
Lionel VICTOR (free) wrote:
Bloody web mail session... dropped my attachement... here you are... sorry
about that...
The patch needed some tweaks to make it compile cleanly, can you verify
that it works for you as expected?
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
Signing good, hash files are in a format at least my md5sum and sha1sum
do not understand how to check.
Can anyone point out what I'm doing wrong with 'gpg --print-md md5'? Am I
missing some magic flag, or is the idea of using gpg to create
24 matches
Mail list logo
